• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

It is an irony that these questions come from the Liberal Democrats, who in my part of London are saying that 50% affordable housing really is not enough; they want 50% housing available for rent, and then affordable housing on top of that. So far as what you have said today about the number of boroughs that have subscribed to your policy, it is interesting that many of those boroughs which do not accept your policy, do not accept it because they think that the standard of housing which may be provided if there is a 50% demand for affordable...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Are you then going to moderate your comments in the future when particular boroughs do not manage to achieve the 50% target rather than rushing to the press, condemning them? You have just said that you accept that in some cases it is not always possible, and it must be a target that we try to reach rather than something that is set in stone.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

The strategic target to provide 50% of new housing supply as affordable was not introduced into the planning system until February this year when the London Plan was published. In the financial year 2003/04, across London as a whole there were 20,189 completions of new homes, including 7,609 affordable homes, or 35% of the total. This is only taking account of net new completions of self-contained accommodation, or what we would think of as conventional housing supply. Total new housing supply was, however, higher, including 3,585 vacant dwellings brought back into use and the completion of 834 non-self-contained units. The...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

I would be absolutely staggered if we did, but I hope you are right. Do you not think it is somewhat hypocritical that you are accepting 30% for what you say are very good financial reasons? I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but at the same time you are saying to boroughs they must come up with 50%, almost regardless of local circumstances. Surely you ought to be providing more support for the hard-pressed boroughs. For example, the planning officers are now having to undertake very complex negotiations with developers within existing resources, which are inadequate...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

So, as you say, you only consult when you are required to do so. You often say that there is less need for consultation, because you are always so open and honest during your election campaigns, and if people elect you they know what they are getting, but, throughout the election campaign, you kept insisting that you would not increase fares above inflation. As recently as 14 May, you wrote to the Evening Standard and said 'There are no planned increases to Tube ticket prices'. So, how did people know what they were getting when they voted for you as...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Is it not the truth that you actually only consult when the law requires you to do so?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

But you do anticipate some traffic rises, then, as a result of the fares going up.

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Did you, on the campaign trail in June of this year, promise Londoners that you would do everything possible to give them an improved public transport system fit for the 21st century? Added to that, what projects in Sutton, Lambeth, Southwark and Islington would you have to cut from the TfL budget if you were to avoid fare increases?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Are you concerned that there will be traffic increases as a result of the bus fare rises and the Tube rises, and that people will be tempted back into their cars?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

The question talks about the consultation on the congestion charge increase. I wondered, firstly, when you intend to consult, how you intend to consult, and could you just reassure Londoners that there is some point in being consulted, given that you have ignored 66% of Londoners' views in the consultation which was recently undertaken on the extension of the congestion charge itself.